Guided by the social network perspective, this study examined the structural properties of the state reading policy domain using network visualization tools: sociograms and multidimensional scaling scattergrams. The authors' graphic exploration of eight state reading policy networks produced rich insights about the density and the overall configuration of the networks, as well as the influence distribution, positional differentiation, and interaction patterns among diverse state reading policy actors. This study not only advances knowledge about the structural context of the state reading policy domain but also demonstrates the utility of network-analytic methods, network visualization techniques in particular, for policy research in education.
Adler, P., & Kwon, S. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
2.
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly , 45, 425-455.
3.
Berkowitz, S.D. (1988). Markets and market-areas: Some preliminary formulations . In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 261-303). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Berry, J. (1997). The interest group society (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.
Brandes, U., Kenis, P., Raab, J., Schneider, V., & Wagner, D. (1999). Explorations into the visualization of policy networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(1), 75-106.
8.
Brandes, U., Raab, J., & Wagner, D. (2001). Exploratory network visualization: Simultaneous display of actor status and connections. Journal of Social Structure, 2(4). Available at http://zeeb.library.cmu.edu:7850/JoSS/brandes/brw-envsd-01.pdf
9.
Burt, R.S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287-1335.
10.
Cook, K.S. (1977). Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. Sociological Quarterly, 18, 62-82.
11.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25-46.
12.
Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: I. Conceptual clarification . Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
13.
Freeman, L.C. (2000a). Visualizing social groups. In 1999 proceedings of the Section on Statistics Graphics (pp. 47-54). Alexandria, VA: American Statistics Association.
14.
Freeman, L.C. (2000b). Visualizing social networks. Journal of Social Structure, 1(1). Available at http://moreno.ss.uci.edu/freeman.pdf
15.
Galaskiewicz, J., & Wasserman, S. (1994). Introduction: Advances in the social and behavioral sciences from social network analysis. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences (pp. xi-xvii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Hage, P., & Harary, F. (1983). Structural models in anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment . In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
18.
Heinz, J.P., Laumann, E.O., Nelson, R.L., & Salisbury, R.H. (1993). The hollow core: Private interests in national policy making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Johnson, J.C., & Krempel, L. (2004). Network visualization: The “Bush team” in Reuters news ticker 9/11-11/15/01. Journal of Social Structures , 5(1). Available at http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume5/JohnsonKrempel/
20.
Klovdahl, A.S. (1981). A note on images of networks. Social Networks, 3, 197-214.
21.
Knoke, D. (1986). Associations and interest groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 121.
22.
Knoke, D. (1990). Political networks: The structural perspective . New York: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J.H. (1982). Network analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Knoke, D., & Laumann, E.O. (1982). The social organization of national policy domains: An exploration of some structural hypotheses. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 255-270). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26.
Laumann, E.O. (1979). Network analysis in large social systems: Some theoretical and methodological problems. In P. W. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds.), Perspectives on social network analysis (pp. 379-402). New York: Academic Press.
27.
Laumann, E.O., & Knoke, D. (1987). The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
28.
Laumann, E.O., & Pappi, F.U. (1973). New directions in the study of community elites . American Sociological Review, 38, 212-230.
29.
Laumann, E.O., & Pappi, F.U. (1976). Networks of collective action: A perspective on community influence systems. New York: Academic Press.
30.
Marshall, C., Mitchell, D., & Wirt, F. (1989). Culture and education policy in the American states . New York: Falmer.
31.
McCarty, C. (2002). Structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure, 3(1). Available at http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume3/McCarty.html
32.
McDaniel, J.E. (2001). The shaping of national reading policy: Using the structural approach to examine the politics of reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
33.
McFarland, A.S. (1992). Interest groups and the policymaking process: Sources of countervailing power in America. In M. P. Petracca (Ed.), The politics of interests (pp. 8-79). Boulder, CO: Westview.
34.
Miskel, C.G., Coggshall, J.G., DeYoung, D.A., Osguthorpe, R.D., Song, M., & Young, T.V. (2003, August). Reading policy in the states: Interests and processes (Final report for the Field-Initiated Studies Grant PR/Award No. R305T990369, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education and the Spencer Foundation Major Research Grants Program Award #200000269). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
35.
Miskel, C.G., & Song, M. (2004). Passing reading first: Prominence and processes in an elite policy network. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(2), 89-109.
36.
Mizruchi, M.S. (1994). Social network analysis: Recent achievements and current controversies. Acta Sociologica, 37(4), 325-448.
37.
Mizruchi, M.S., & Fein, L.C. (1999). The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly,44, 653-683.
38.
Moreno, J.L. (1932). Application of the group method to classification . New York: National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor.
39.
Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing.
40.
Moreno, J.L. (1953). Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy and sociodrama (Rev. ed.). Beacon, NY: Beacon.
Nownes, A.J., & Freeman, P. (1998). Interest group activity in the states. Journal of Politics, 60(1), 86-112.
43.
Peters, B.G. (1999). Institutional theory in political science: The “new institutionalism.” New York: Continuum.
44.
Salisbury, R. (1990). The paradox of interest groups in Washington: More groups, less clout. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (2nd ed., pp. 203-229). Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage Ltd.
47.
Sims, C., & Miskel, C.G. (2003). The punctuated equilibrium of national reading policy: Literacy's changing images and venues. In W. K. Hoy and C. G. Miskel (Eds.), Studies in leading and organizing schools (pp. 1-26). Greenwich, CT : Information Age.
48.
Song, M., & Miskel, C.G. (2002). Interest groups in national reading policy: Perceived influence and beliefs on teaching reading. Theory and Research in Educational Administration, 1, 77-96.
49.
Song, M., & Miskel, C.G. (2005). Who are the influentials: A cross-state social network analysis of the reading policy domain. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 7-48.
50.
Song, M., Miskel, C.G., Young, T.V., & McDaniel, J.E. (2000). Perceived influence of interest groups in national reading policy. Paper presented at the University Council of Educational Administration, Albuquerque, NM.
51.
Thomas, C.S., & Hrebenar, R.J. (1991). Nationalization of interest groups and lobbying in the states. In A. J. Cigler & B. A. Loomis (Eds.), Interest group politics (3rd ed., pp. 63-80). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
52.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications . New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Wellman, B. (1997). Structural analysis: From metaphor to substance . In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (Vol. 15, pp. 19-61). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
54.
Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 558-588.
55.
Wolfe, A.W. (1978). The rise of network thinking in anthropology. Social Networks, 1, 53-64.
56.
Young, T.V., & Miskel, C.G. (in press). Coalitions in state reading policy issue networks. In W. Hoy & C. Miskel (Eds.), Research and theory in educational administration . Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
